Research and Deduction of Car-to-TW Vehicle AEB Test Scenarios Based on Improved Clustering Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two‐wheeled (TW) vehicle accidents are one of the major types of urban traffic accidents. TW cyclists who lack safety protection usually suffer more serious injuries and deaths in collisions. Developments in automotive active safety technologies are expected to reduce cyclist injuries and deaths, such as automatic emergency braking (AEB). To facilitate the development and testing of AEB technology, typical TW vehicle scenarios need to be constructed. Based on 400 cases of car‐to‐TW vehicle accident data from the National Automobile Accident In‐Depth Investigation System (NAIS) database, we investigated the scenario elements that influence AEB robustness, such as weather, accident time, and road wetness. We obtained seven static scenarios using an improved clustering method, and we obtained specific speed and distance combinations in each scenario using a deduction method. Further, we compared the present findings to those of other scholars and the China New Car Assessment Program (C‐NCAP). The kinematic states of the two were similar to that of C‐NCAP, but the speed distribution was significantly different. The TW vehicle speed in the C‐NCAP is set to 15 km/h or 20 km/h concerning the European test scenarios, but the TW vehicle speed in the present study was 10–60 km/h. Thus, the present findings recommended that subsequent C‐NCAP test scenarios increase the category of motorcycles and the speed range of cars covering 20–70 km/h and consider the test conditions of bad weather and wet roads, to test the robustness of AEB.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".